Topic Editors

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Oral Sciences, Section of Orthodontics, University of Naples Federico II, 80138 Napoli NA, Italy
ARDEC Academy, Viale Giovanni Pascoli 67, 47923 Rimini, Italy
Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy

Advances in Dental Materials

Abstract submission deadline
28 February 2026
Manuscript submission deadline
31 May 2026
Viewed by
4212

Topic Information

Dear Colleagues,

In recent years, progress in material sciences and digital technologies has enabled various advancements in all fields of dentistry, prompting several paradigm shifts, such as from retention to adhesion, from the absence of toxicity to regeneration, and from an analogue workflow to a digital workflow. This Topic calls for high-quality research articles and clinical studies on metallic, polymeric, ceramic, and composite biomaterials applied in the fields of restorative dentistry, endodontics, oral and maxillo-facial surgery, dental implantology, periodontology, and orthodontics. We are pleased to invite you to contribute to our Topic on “Advances in Dental Materials” and we look forward to receiving your submissions.

Prof. Dr. Vincenzo D'Antò
Dr. Daniele Botticelli
Dr. Piero Antonio Zecca
Topic Editors

Keywords

  • dental materials
  • mechanical tests
  • numerical simulations
  • clinical trials
  • biocompatibility
  • regenerative medicine
  • digital technologies

Participating Journals

Journal Name Impact Factor CiteScore Launched Year First Decision (median) APC
Applied Sciences
applsci
2.5 5.3 2011 18.4 Days CHF 2400 Submit
Dentistry Journal
dentistry
2.5 3.7 2013 26.2 Days CHF 2000 Submit
Journal of Clinical Medicine
jcm
3.0 5.7 2012 16 Days CHF 2600 Submit
Materials
materials
3.1 5.8 2008 13.9 Days CHF 2600 Submit
Medicina
medicina
2.4 3.3 1920 17.1 Days CHF 2200 Submit

Preprints.org is a multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that is dedicated to sharing your research from the start and empowering your research journey.

MDPI Topics is cooperating with Preprints.org and has built a direct connection between MDPI journals and Preprints.org. Authors are encouraged to enjoy the benefits by posting a preprint at Preprints.org prior to publication:

  1. Immediately share your ideas ahead of publication and establish your research priority;
  2. Protect your idea from being stolen with this time-stamped preprint article;
  3. Enhance the exposure and impact of your research;
  4. Receive feedback from your peers in advance;
  5. Have it indexed in Web of Science (Preprint Citation Index), Google Scholar, Crossref, SHARE, PrePubMed, Scilit and Europe PMC.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Order results
Result details
Journals
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
11 pages, 788 KiB  
Article
Stability Comparison of Implants with Alumina- Sandblasting and Acid- Etching Surface Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study
by Song-I Back, Myung-Jin Chung, Ho-Gul Jeong and Ji-Hyum Min
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(3), 740; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14030740 - 23 Jan 2025
Viewed by 377
Abstract
Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare and evaluate the 1-year stability of two Korean implant brands, Osstem and Toplan, both treated with alumina- sandblasting and acid- etching (SA) surface modification. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluated patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists [...] Read more.
Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare and evaluate the 1-year stability of two Korean implant brands, Osstem and Toplan, both treated with alumina- sandblasting and acid- etching (SA) surface modification. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluated patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I or II, >20 years, with alveolar bone volume suitable for implant placement, who received immediate or delayed placement after extraction, and with Osstem (n = 57) or Toplan (n = 87) implants. The insertion torque value (ITV) measured on the day of implant placement and the implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured on the day of implant placement, 1 month post-surgery, and 2–3 months after implantation were analyzed. Results: Both implants had significantly increased ISQs over time, and the ISQs did not significantly differ between Osstem and Toplan implants at any time point. Osstem implants showed significantly higher ISQs in D2 than in D3 bone, and in the mandible than in the maxilla at all time points. Toplan implants with diameters >4.0 mm showed higher initial ISQs. Osstem implants showed a significant correlation between ITV and ISQ on the day of placement (r = 0.349, p < 0.01) but not at later time points. For Toplan implants, no significant correlation was confirmed between ITV and ISQ at any time point. At the 1-year follow-up, both implants were still providing functional service. Conclusions: Osstem and Toplan implants with SA surface treatment showed a high level of stability for 1 year, and no significant difference in stability was observed between the two implants. Both implants are considered clinically reliable products. Full article
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Dental Materials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 520 KiB  
Review
Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative Review
by Deok Yong Kim, Nona Aryan, Nathaniel C. Lawson and Kyounga Cheon
Dent. J. 2024, 12(11), 365; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12110365 - 15 Nov 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1060
Abstract
Background: Dental restoration success relies on the physical properties of luting cements. Luting cements fill the space between teeth and the restoration, provide retention and protection from occlusal forces, and act as a barrier to microleakages in the oral environment. Objective: This review [...] Read more.
Background: Dental restoration success relies on the physical properties of luting cements. Luting cements fill the space between teeth and the restoration, provide retention and protection from occlusal forces, and act as a barrier to microleakages in the oral environment. Objective: This review aims to evaluate and compare the solubility of the three most used dental luting cements: glass ionomer (GI), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and resin cement (RC). Methods: The studies selected for review compared the solubilities of combinations of GI, RMGI, and RC in solutions with different pH levels to replicate acidic oral pH. Results: A review of the studies concluded that resin cement had the overall lowest degree of solubility at all pH values and all storage periods, followed by RMGI and GI cement. Conclusions: The success of the restoration is dependent upon the choice of luting cement. The results of the studies reviewed show that all dental luting cements showed some degree of dissolution. Resin cement overall demonstrated the least amount of solubility, followed by RMGI and GI cement. Full article
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Dental Materials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 833 KiB  
Article
Evaluation and Comparison of the Effect of Three Dental Luting Cements on Mineralized Bone Derived from Dental Pulp Stem Cells: An In Vitro Study
by Sneha Bajoria, Shwetha Rajesh Shetty, Vinod Bandela, Shital Sonune, Roshan Noor Mohamed, Kulashekar Reddy Nandalur, Anil Kumar Nagarajappa, Amjad Obaid Aljohani, Aljowharah Ali Alsattam, Eatedal Mukhlef Alruwaili, Alreem Abdulaziz Alnuman, Miad Abdulnasser Alahmed, Saraswathi Kanaparthi and Doaa Abdelaziz A. Helal
Medicina 2024, 60(10), 1622; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60101622 - 4 Oct 2024
Viewed by 1157
Abstract
Background and Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effect of zinc phosphate (ZnP) cement, glass ionomer cement (GIC), and nano-integrated bio-ceramic (NIB) cement on mineralization when placed in contact with bone tissue-forming cells. Materials and Methods: ZnP cement, GIC, and NIB cement [...] Read more.
Background and Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effect of zinc phosphate (ZnP) cement, glass ionomer cement (GIC), and nano-integrated bio-ceramic (NIB) cement on mineralization when placed in contact with bone tissue-forming cells. Materials and Methods: ZnP cement, GIC, and NIB cement were divided into direct and indirect groups. A total of 72 cement pellets (24 pellets of each test sample) of 3 × 1 mm (width × height) were prepared using polytetrafluoroethylene molds. A total of 3 sample groups were demarcated using 96- cell well culture plates. In the control group, 24 wells were filled with mineralized osteoblasts and 1 µL of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). In test group 1, to show a direct effect, 36 samples were plated with mineralized osteoblasts and 1 µL GCF for 24 h; the cells were directly exposed to cement pellets. A total of 36 samples were immersed in GCF for 24 h; later the supernatant was transferred to the mineralized osteoblasts to demonstrate an indirect effect in test group 2. To assess the mineralization, osteoblasts were stained with alizarin red and later observed under an inverted phase-contrast microscope. Data were analyzed using the statistical package for social sciences. An independent t-test compared the direct and indirect effects of the ZnP cement, GIC, NIB cement, and control groups on the mineralization of osteoblasts derived from hDPCs. Results: A statistically significant difference was observed between the ZnP cement, GIC, and NIB cement groups (p < 0.05). ZnP cement exhibited a moderate, NIB cement the least harmful effect, and GIC showed the most harmful effect on the mineralization of osteoblast cells. Conclusions: The biocompatibility of dental luting cements is an important aspect that clinicians should consider during their selection. Nano-integrated bio-ceramic cement showed the least negative effect on the mineralization of osteoblast cells which is beneficial for the cementation of cement-retained implant prostheses. However, further studies are needed to evaluate osteoblast and osteoclast activity in vivo. Full article
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Dental Materials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 3686 KiB  
Case Report
Failed Orthodontic PEEK Retainer: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis and a Possible Failure Mechanism in a Case Report
by Piero Antonio Zecca, Salvatore Bocchieri, Andrea Carganico, Margherita Caccia, Rosamaria Fastuca, Marina Borgese, Luca Levrini and Marcella Reguzzoni
Dent. J. 2024, 12(7), 223; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12070223 - 18 Jul 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 878
Abstract
This study presents a scanning electron microscopy analysis of a failed PEEK retainer in an orthodontic patient. After 15 months of use, the patient reported a gap opening between teeth 41 and 42. The PEEK retainer was removed and sent for electron microscope [...] Read more.
This study presents a scanning electron microscopy analysis of a failed PEEK retainer in an orthodontic patient. After 15 months of use, the patient reported a gap opening between teeth 41 and 42. The PEEK retainer was removed and sent for electron microscope analysis. To investigate the failure, scanning electron microscopy was employed to assess the microstructure and composition of the retainer at various magnifications. These findings suggest that the failure of the PEEK retainer was multifaceted, implicating factors such as material defects, manufacturing flaws, inadequate design, environmental factors, and patient-related factors. In conclusion, this scanning electron microscopy analysis offers valuable insights into the failure mechanisms of PEEK retainers in orthodontic applications. Further research is necessary to explore preventive strategies and optimize the design and fabrication of PEEK retainers, minimizing the occurrence of failures in orthodontic practice. Full article
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Dental Materials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop